Replies to This Discussion

Noel, after my hitch in the US Navy during the Korean War, America's zillion-dollar military has not done well against guerillas and non-state actors.

Why are there non-state actors?

Because during the Cold War America gave foreign aid to any tyrant who opposed the Soviet Union, and those tyrants treated their own people so badly.

Since WW2, America's foreign policy has been on a collision course with Americans' civil rights.

Our CIA overthrew an elected government in Iran. We installed and supported a tyrant (the Shah) and trained his secret police (Savak). In short, America created the conditions that resulted in the religious government Iran now has.

You might not like the idea, but America can and has done wrong.

Oh, I forgot. A Democratic administration lied us into a war in Viet Nam and a Republican administration lied us into a war in Iraq. Do you care?

Do some reading, General Smedley Butler. Invaded and helped install most of the despots in Latin America, in the early 1900's only to come to the realization that his government sent him to all these exotic places, like Panama and Guatemala, at the behest of U.S. company's with interest in those countries. In his book "War is a Racket", he lambasted our political system and it's being at the beck and call of companies who got us into, what he called, The Banana Wars.

My argument, in my previous post, was not to lob praise on our countries military exploits in other countries but to demolish the argument that several thousand or even several tens of thousands, armed with AR-15's against our standing Army, Navy, Airforce, and Marines, Coast Guard, CIA, etc, do not stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting their way.

My argument is not to destroy the 2nd Ammendment to the constitution. The same way we regulate medicine, which can be deadly, regulating plutonium, regulating most crap that kills us; we should at least know who the fuck the asshole was that bought that Bushmaster, with the 1,000 round clip, and forgot to report it stolen after it was used to kill several hundred people at a movie theater, or a school, or an old folks home…. To those who feel that owning an assault rifle is the best thing since, well apple pie, I gotta' ask, what's next? Grenade launchers?, guided missile battery's? F/A-18's? How about a few Howitzers on our front lawns? The argument that regulation is imposing on gun owners freedoms is pathetic when some gun owners care more about hoarding arms than of mine and my children's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If I'm shot dead their argument is "he should have had a gun". If I'm shout dead and had a gun their argument is, "he should have spent more time at the range". When the argument should be, "Why was he shot dead?" Without all the circular nonsense.

Husni al-Za'im's reign was short lived-lived, but subsequent coups learned the lesson and let the Trans Arabian Pipeline be - Syria has never regained stability and as I understand it is still somewhat of a problem.

The overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 53 - which at least 'un-nationalized' the petrol resources for 25 years. With democracy gone, they eventually turned to theocracy and, well, they are somewhat of a problem today as well.

Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala - again, may not have ruled long, but commercial goals were achieved.

Let's not forget Afghanistan - first putting warlords in power, leading the the Taliban to become their supreme court, then putting Karzai in there now - so that's one country that's been flipped twice, both times for the sake of keeping markets open.

Ok, how was the longevity of the new government (often dictators) relevant here? The point was that the US military is overthrowing governments and behalf of corporate America. Even if the dictator/new regime doesn't last long - the economic changes stay in place because the succeeding governments know touching those changes will just bring the US back.

That's one of the perquisites of being a very powerful nation, though, isn't it? The way it's always been and always will be. I'm sure that if Canada had equivalent power, it would be throwing its weight around on behalf of its wood products, oil and mining, and fishing industries as well, though in that case you'd probably be defending your government and I'd be the one harping about how nasty it is of the Canadian government to be assisting Canadian business interests.

Well, the Canadian government is currently spending money to promote oil sands development and I'm vocally opposed - not because I'm opposed to oil sands development but because I feel it is a violation of free market economics when a government uses my tax dollars to advertise on behalf of corporate interests.

I'm opposed to them advertising - now imagine how I would feel if they were assassinating people, ruining foreign countries, and starting wars on behalf of those companies?

So, unlike you, no - I wouldn't defend my government going abroad and killing people and destroying lives to make my corporate masters richer. Why do you?